“In the event of an impending head explosion, immediately place both hands, fingers spread, firmly around your skull, applying pressure to both the top and the sides, until the pressure begins to subside…”

This could have been an Ethics Dunce, or an Unethical Quote of the Month. It was nearly a KABOOM!, if I hadn’t immediately clasped my hands, hard, over my skull when I read it, just in time to stop my brain from exploding. I also almost included it in draft post called A “This Helps Explain Why Trump Is President” Potpourri.

Upon reflection, I decided that a self-described “civil rights activist” tweeting this was so unethical, so ignorance-promoting, not to mention hateful, bigoted and sexist, that it deserved to stand alone.

An ethical, sane, democracy and American values-supporting “lady” , confronting such a curfew, would realize that a totalitarian regime had taken over, and either join a citizen rebel army, or get the hell out of the country. Yeah, I read the thread, being a “dude,” and realized that what passes for feminism in a lot of cases is misandry and hypocrisy. Also that what passes for a “civil rights activist” is occasionally a crypt-fascist who neither understands civil rights nor supports them.

Imagine if her tweet had substituted “African-Americans” or “Muslims” for “men,” and “dudes”, and “White, law-abiding citizens” for “Ladies.”

If Muscato is to be believed, and frankly, I wouldn’t believe someone who tweets something this stupid to tell me what number comes after “3”, Danielle is often featured in or on the New York Times, Time, CNN, NPR, and Rolling Stone.

What does that tell you?

Perusing this woman’s twitter feed, I also noticed that she responded to a Presidential tweet endorsing a book by suggesting that Trump had breached an ethics rule. “You just made this man millions of dollars!” she bleated-tweeted.

In August, “resistance” ethics hounds were baying at Trump when he tweeted a recommendation for another book, “Cop Under Fire,” by Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, Jr. “This is only the latest unfortunate example of President Trump disregarding the ethical norms that help ensure that public officials are working for the public rather than for private interests,” Brendan Fischer, an attorney with the Campaign Legal Center, wrote in an email. Other “Only Republican Are Unethical” watchdog groups complained as well, like CREW, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

First, there are no ethics rules that prevent a President from saying that he likes a book. I think that Presidents should avoid this, because it can easily get out of hand while sending a message that using government positions to endorse products is not prohibited for everyone else in the Executive Branch except the President and Vice-President, because, in fact, it is.

Second, and this is a smoking gun example of the outrageous media bias against the President, many of his predecessors have endorsed books with nary a peep of protest from anyone, anywhere. Among them, Barack Obama, who happily endorsed movies, books and helped get movies made out of books he endorsed, like Doris Kearns Goodwin’s “Team of Rivals,” which Stephen Spielberg turned into “Lincoln,” making Goodwin, an old professor of mine, “millions of dollars.”

But that was Obama, you see, who could do no wrong. Trump can do no right, even when he does exactly the same thing. If Obama was criticized by the news media for conduct identical to what other Presidents had done with impunity, what would that be called? The word is prejudice. That’s exactly what this treatment of Trump is now.

And thinking, writing and opining based on prejudice is how a “civil rights activist” who admires gender-based discrimination gets to appear in or on NYT, Time, CNN, NPR, Rolling Stone, without someone like me nearby to explain why she’s a phony.

I think she’s implying that most women would go out and party all night or something, vastly underestimating how many women would find that entirely boring with no men around (and how many married women, non-feminist women, and generally intelligent and mature grown-up women don’t live to go club-hopping in the first place.) I’m going to ask my wife what she would do if I couldn’t go out after 9pm. I’ll check back with her answer.

Hmmm, let’s see – what about men who by the nature of their jobs need to be out after 9 PM, or will the overnight shifts of our first responders, hospitals, bakeries, and warehouses be staffed by women only? How about attorneys like myself, who often stay late to catch up, because we’ve spent the whole day putting out fires? What about entertainers? How about community groups? Do Scouting and CCD and community musical groups all have to make sure the meetings end in time for all the men to get home for 9? The suggestion is just so mind-numbingly stupid it doesn’t bear serious discussion, yet this “activist” thinks we should discuss it as though it had merit. Yes, this belongs in a “this is why we have President Trump” potpourri.

Someone actually answered the ‘thought experiment’ a comment like that, and one of the responses was to the effect: “What? You don’t think we women can stand up for ourselves to police away the bad men on our own?”

…

…

…

Wait….so you can’t stand up for yourselves and police away the bad men RIGHT NOW??? Without a curfew???

…
…

…

Like the whole premise of needing a curfew was because you all *couldn’t* do so?

I perused many of the suggestions that beleaguered women put forward and had a good laugh thinking “you can do all of these things right now.” And “what kind of terror do you live in on a 24 hour basis that you don’t think you can engage in some of these activities?”

I also was contented by there being at least half of the responses from women who hadn’t lost their minds and mentioned how miserable they’d be if they could go out with their husbands or sons or fathers or male friends whom they are not terrified of on a regular basis.

Then again, if all the women were out at 9 and the men confined to their houses… just think of the peace and quiet a man could enjoy.

It tells me that it is tongue-in-cheek. Similarly, a female lawyer on FB commented recently (I’m paraphrasing): Assuming we need guns to protect our liberty, then only women should be allowed to own guns. Liberty protected, government in check, and virtually no murders.”

Of course this woman was joking. We all knew she was joking and commented to that effect. Such a law would be unconstitutional, unenforceable, and ineffective. But she made the comment to draw attention to the (obvious) fact that this is primarily a male problem.

(Sigh) Unfortunately, my dear Sparty, as you know, things that can easily be taken as tongue-in-cheek when spoken through tone of voice, facial expression, and other non-verbal cues, lose all that when written in ink or pixels. As written, it’s hard to tell if the writer here is joking or trying to get a rise, or yet another ideologue or hard-core person who seriously believes this craziness.

I must add that I lost my faith in the argument about it being wrong to distrust the many for the acts of the few about three years ago in the wake of the Santa Clara killings, when several feminists, and liberal male allies, advanced the “candy dish” argument to justify women distrusting all men.

The argument is, as I’m sure you’re aware, that suppose you have a dish full of many pieces of candy. Only one of them is poisoned, but you can’t tell it from the others by sight, and if you eat it, it will be absolutely fatal. Are you going to chance taking a piece from this dish? Similarly, most men are not dangerous, but there are a few rapists out there, and you can’t tell a potential rapist from anyone else, so keep your distance from men save your chosen and fully vetted partner.

The same liberals who advanced the ‘candy dish” argument here were horrified and offended when it was applied to groups other than men. It is racist if I say a lot of blacks are gang-bangers and muggers, so I would just as soon keep away from blacks not personally known to me. It is islamophobic if I say that a lot of Muslims are terrorists, so maybe we might want to think twice about letting just any Muslim into this country without checking his background, asking him what his business is here, and asking him where he will be while he is here and when he plans to leave.

Apparently no expense must be spared to shield a woman from abuse or even being uncomfortable, but a hardworking guy getting the crap beaten out of him and his wallet and watch stolen, or a building getting blown up or a crown being fired upon by a sniper yelling “Allahu akbar!” is just the price of a free and nonjudgmental society.